Chilean Army Buys 100 Leopard 2 MBT

[Glider]

It will be interesting to see what Argentina do when the Chilian Leopard 2's are comming on stream. I hope they see sence and go into a my army is bigger than your army contest. That can lead to serious trouble

 

[Supe]

I think the quesion is, does the government? The army is supposed to be able to put a battalion group into a chapter 7 peace enforcement/mid intensity conflict operation. The artillery is supposed to be replaced in a few years and I think we will probably end up with whatever the Australians get....but this is way off topic..my bad

Well procurment of 155mm arty pieces would surely depend on NZDF advice to Government. The case would have to be made for them. It appears to me, there is a trend emerging of nations emphasising use of 155mm calibre - I can conceive the Kiwis buying at a later date, whatever ADF chooses for its towed component. The Canadian have acquired some M777's - and have been deployed in Afghanistan. So a nation that considers its forces as mostly 'peacekeepers' has seen fit to buy heavier weaponry.

Back on to the Chileans.

@Glider

The OP has said relations with the Argentians are amicable and as I understand, they are not in a position economically to buy equipment.

And yes, in the next years the ECH (Chilean Army) will be the "biggest and meanest dog" of the block , but there are reasons for that, mainly the rising of two dime "leaders" such Ollanta Humala (Perú) and Hugo Chavéz (Venezuela), and we are seen in LA as the "watch dog of the empire" (US) because of our friendly relations with the US

Those characterisations (watchdog) can lead to political friction (or exacerbate existing friction) in the region. Is the watchdog characterisation a local media creation? I can see the propangadists and spin doctors saying 'lapdop' rather than watchdog.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I can remember seeing a battery of heavy artillery at the Hamilton Army in the 1980's. The army sought to replace them under I think it was the 4th Labour government, but failed to justify its case (I think this is in the book Defending NZ).

IIRC those were 5.5 inch weapons.

I can't see the army going for 155mm when it can only field 3 6 gun batterys of 105mm. I think the army should go for 8 gun battery regiment, with a further 18 guns for intro training, terroritial force use. This would take us back to where we use to be before the pack howiziters were withdrawn.

Maybe, but given who we expect to work with I think commonality in such matters would be advantagous. I would be surpised if SP artillery is not looked at as well given the return to a moterised infantry force.

 

[Feña]

Its a construction on the leftist media in LA, we say NO to Bush in the Security Council (Where it REALLY matters BTW) when Chile was non permanent member and he was seeking approval of the UN to his Iraki campaign, Chile could have lost a lot since in that days we are closing the negotiations to the free trade agreement with the US, something in wich the democratic goverment has work for nearly 8 years ... so, yes we think that we are friends of the US, but a friend with an attitude :nutkick

The problem down here is that the left wing goverments or, even worst, leftist nacionalist goverments of LA (a good example is venezuela`s president Mr. Chavez) trys to convince the people that the source of all their problems is the market and the US, so, in the way they see the world, Chile is a problem because we have been succesfuly reducing the poverty (now about 18% of the population) but within a social-market economy ...

There are no problems with Argentina, they goverment don´t have any desire of build up the capacitys of the AF, so, the Argentinian Army still rolls on TAM MBT (wich is a little inferior to the chilean Leopard 1 Vertebed), the Air force flyes Mirages of the Falklands war (this is no joke, the birds have mission marking and all, it´s quite impressing) and the A4AR, wich is like a NZ A4 I Think (APG 65 radar), the main problem is the lack of modern missiles, they still operates AIM-L, even the americans have to lend them some AIM 9M to protect the Mar del Plata President Summit last year ... in medium range the situation is even worst ...

For us, the main concern is the rising of ethnic or nationalist goverment in Perú and Bolivia, countrys that dont feel any sympaties for us, this came from a war of the 19 century in wich Chile defeated them and take some territories, so there are still a dormant revenge feeling ... wich can be exploited by an unrational leader ...

Bye

 

[Feña]

Well, It`s has been confirmed today by the German MoD, Chile will receive 118 Leopard 2 A4 MBT, besides the combat vehicles, the package include special vehicles such as school, engineers and bridge layers ... nothing about the Gepards ... well you can´t have it all, right?

I think that today some brindis will be made in the cavalry regiments of the chilean army

Bye

 

[Aussie Digger]

No DU, that'd be too controversial with the voters.
Looks like three types, i)training rounds ii) M830A1 Multipurpose iii) KEW-A2 tungsten APFSDS-T
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830a1.htm
http://www.gd-ots.com/sitepages/inthenews/pressr/1204.html
".....
General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems will be the program prime contractor and will produce the latest 120mm KEW-A2 tungsten APFSDS-T cartridge, as well as quantities of training ammunition, for the Australian Armed Forces.
Tom Wilson, vice president, ATK Precision Systems Group, whose Ordnance and Ground Systems business unit will produce both the M830A1 Multipurpose round and training ammunition under the contract, said, "ATK and...."

People have complained that the ammunition types to be used by ADF for the Abrams are too limited.
I've read claims that ADF should also have some form of canister round on order. eg XM1028
Plus if you're going the whole hog, some form of guided munition would be handy too. eg GD-OTS
http://www.gd-ots.com/sitepages/dirfire.html

I've got no idea what's currently used in ADF Leo1s.

cheers
rb

Relax, the Australian Army IS getting the Tungsten cube "canister" round. (I'll try and dig up some evidence to support this soon, but I "know" I read it in Army rag, I mean, er, mag...

Our Leo AS1's currently use HEAT and HESH rounds, plus sub-cal training rounds. So even that package nominated above seems like an improvement.

As to getting back on topic, I think this is a good move for Chile. The Leo II's are widely regarded as an excellent tank (The Royal Australian Armoured Corps wanted IT instead of Abrams too), and should serve Chile well. A fleet of 300 would make it by far the most potent armoured force in the America's and probably only second behind the US itself...

 

[Super Nimrod]

Fena, Do you think you will still get all 300 MBT's if the price of copper falls ?

I would never be surprised to see the the excellent Chilian Navy find themselves in posession of a small aircraft carrier and a dozen Harriers in the next few years as well

 

[Feña]

About the 300 L2 ... Yes, there are no doubts about it. That`s because that particular acquisition program are part of a "force development plan" for the army, we don´t go around buying anything just because it`s cheap and shiny , before ever consider to get new weapons systems, each service make an operational evaluation to see if we can support and operate it.

The incorporation of the L2 was part of the long term plans of the army, but the high copper price and the discount sales in Europe create an opportunity that we cannot miss ... and since the number of L2 for sale in the german stock is reducing fast, we think that this is the time to buy ...

About the carrier, that`s an issue that we have discussed a lot in Chile, but at the end, it was to expensive for us to operate, and the Harrier is not such a great plane to justify the effort .... MAYBE, the Navy will consider to buy another Type 23 frigate if England offer it to us, but thats about all they willing to buy ...

 

[arck]

There is no reason to such army and navy increase,,,,,,the chilenean must watch his own poor people instead to buy equipment for what war,,,,,

 

[swerve]

About the 300 L2 ... Yes, there are no doubts about it. That`s because that particular acquisition program are part of a "force development plan" for the army, we don´t go around buying anything just because it`s cheap and shiny , before ever consider to get new weapons systems, each service make an operational evaluation to see if we can support and operate it....

Buying 300 Leopard 2 would be exactly that - "buying ... just because it`s cheap and shiny". What possible use could Chile have for so many? There is no army in South America which could stand up to 118, let alone 300. Compare that number with the tank forces of Spain, France, the UK, Italy & Germany. It's silly. Serves no purpose except to boost the egos of army officers.

Being able to support & operate something doesn't mean you need it. Tell me, where would these 300 Leopard 2s be used? Against Peru? Overkill. Argentina? Ditto. Bolivia? Don't make me laugh. So what's left? Overseas deployments? But the money for transport has all been spent on tanks . . . .

118 is plenty. More than enough. If there's spare money in the military budget, spend it on something useful, such as a couple of Erieyes, or more second-hand F-16s, or better communications, or transport.

Tell me, has the army high command been grumbling about being left out when the air force & navy got shiny new toys?

 

[swerve]

Fena, Do you think you will still get all 300 MBT's if the price of copper falls ?

I would never be surprised to see the the excellent Chilian Navy find themselves in posession of a small aircraft carrier and a dozen Harriers in the next few years as well

I would. What's the lifespan of the Harriers now in service, & how many are spare? I'd say "not enough" & "probably none". Only spare Harriers I know of are the ex-RN SHARs, & they have iffy engines & for some reason we don't want to sell the radars, so they'd need a hell of a lot of money spent on 'em. And the only ship to fly 'em off is Invincible. By the time she's released for sale, will the SHARs still exist? I wouldn't bet on it.

People keep forgetting that Harriers are no longer made..

 

[Feña]

Buying 300 Leopard 2 would be exactly that - "buying ... just because it`s cheap and shiny". What possible use could Chile have for so many? There is no army in South America which could stand up to 118, let alone 300. Compare that number with the tank forces of Spain, France, the UK, Italy & Germany. It's silly. Serves no purpose except to boost the egos of army officers.

I think that you are kinda new to South American geography, but our country has nearly 4000 km long and an average width of 120 km, so we dont have that much "strategic depth", and the main army corps can´t cooperate if a war situation arise, so we did need two strong army units in each side of the country (Northern desert and patagonia) and ANOTHER army corps in the center to protect the main populated areas. This operative vision came from two serious war scares in the seventies, one with Perú an one with Argentina, in each ocasion we were facing a onslaught of peruvian an argentinian military with WWII weapons (Sherman tanks, Daring destroyers, etc), they have at that time 300 T55 MBT, 115 AMX 13, 60 SU 22, 25 Mirage V, 8 Submarines (Peruvians) and 250 TAM MBT, 35 Mirage III, 60 A4 Skyhawks and a CV "25 de Mayo" (Argentinians), so we dont want to be in that possition again, and our economy can provide the INVESTMENT required for such purchase programs.

And besides, do you think that the peruvians and argentinians will never again buy new weapons systems?, in due course they will, and the european bargains probably will be exhausted by that time, so we take the opportunity and buy the items that are needed in our reduced military. Thats because the MoD has closed nearly 40 territorial regiments, so now we do have a much more smaller army, but it is a LOT more combat ready, had complete TOE´s and get a lot of training for modern warfare. And this is mayor contribution to the South American stability because nobody, even the most crazyest goverment that could rise in LA will dare to face such force in the field.

For overseas deployment the army had created a special operations brigade, that force will have one paratroopers and one commando regiment, support units like a high mobility company (HUMMERS), and a helicopter company (probably Eurocopter Cougars) and a logistic & support battalion. The mission for that unit is to be able to deploy in 24 hours in any part of our country or overseas.

118 is plenty. More than enough. If there's spare money in the military budget, spend it on something useful, such as a couple of Erieyes, or more second-hand F-16s, or better communications, or transport.

I agree with you that the Air Force need more investment, but as you probably know there are several offers from european F16MLU, including extra netherlands and belgian planes, so in a couple of years I think the feather heads will buy another 28 - 30 planes to replace the Mirage Pantera of the Group 4 and the A37 of the Group 12. The only doubt now is wich plane will be selected to replace the F5 TIII + of the Group 7, but that decition will be made in 2010 - 2012.

Tell me, has the army high command been grumbling about being left out when the air force & navy got shiny new toys?

Nop, has a matter of fact, the three services receive the same amount of money, so the army has been stashing their bucks to buy something really juicy, maybe some gepard AAA or the helos for the snake eathers ... but also they have buy a lot of more "low profile" equipment including the licence for the new standar infantry rifle ...

Bye for now ...

 

[swerve]

I think that you are kinda new to South American geography,

No, mate. Read my posts. I've mentioned travelling through some of the country you describe (but not the north of Chile: not been there). I can visualise a map of Chile - indeed, the whole Cono del Sur - in my head, fairly accurately.

but our country has nearly 4000 km long and an average width of 120 km, so we dont have that much "strategic depth", and the main army corps can´t cooperate if a war situation arise, so we did need two strong army units in each side of the country (Northern desert and patagonia) and ANOTHER army corps in the center to protect the main populated areas.

Answer me this - how many TAMs can get over the Andes to get at central Chile? I've been there, crossed those mountains, & I don't think MBTs would play much part in fighting across them. If the Argentinean army has tanks threatening Santiago, you've already lost, & all those tanks won't save you.
Now, for an army corps in Patagonia. Doing what? Let's say the Argentineans attack towards Aysen, or any point between there & the far south. What's your corps down there going to do? You need light forces, preferably airmobile. Your one & only road is far, far too easy to cut, & still doesn't go anywhere near all the way, & the terrain is extremely rugged. Tanks would be more use in the far south which is, effectively, an island (or rather, an archipelago), accessible only by sea & air, but only if you have good strength in the air, & protection for the sea lanes, or forces there will wither on the vine. But in any case, what are they defending? That's territory which can be best defended by defeating Argentina further north, & therefore getting a good peace settlement. Its temporary loss would not threaten Chiles survival.

Across the southern Andes towards Osorno & Puerto Montt is more vulnerable. Still not exactly easy terrain (all those trees! - but I expect the road's been paved now), but easier than further north, & it gives access to the heart of the country. Of course, there, Argentina has worse logistical problems than Chile, unlike further south. Have you seen the roads on their side? Much better on the Chilean side, when I was there. And shorter distances, too. Chilean units would be better able to support each other than Argentinean. Sometimes lack of strategic depth is a positive advantage.

Now, what did you say about my knowledge of the geography?

... now we do have a much more smaller army, but it is a LOT more combat ready, had complete TOE´s and get a lot of training for modern warfare. And this is mayor contribution to the South American stability because nobody, even the most crazyest goverment that could rise in LA will dare to face such force in the field.

Exactly. It's gross overkill. That's what I said.

I agree with you that the Air Force need more investment, but as you probably know there are several offers from european F16MLU, including extra netherlands and belgian planes, so in a couple of years I think the feather heads will buy another 28 - 30 planes to replace the Mirage Pantera of the Group 4 and the A37 of the Group 12. The only doubt now is wich plane will be selected to replace the F5 TIII + of the Group 7, but that decition will be made in 2010 - 2012....

Bye for now ...

Should have bought them instead of paying to operate all those Leo 2s. And helicopters, with high-altitude capabilities.

 

[harryriedl]

I agree with you that the Air Force need more investment, but as you probably know there are several offers from european F16MLU, including extra netherlands and belgian planes, so in a couple of years I think the feather heads will buy another 28 - 30 planes to replace the Mirage Pantera of the Group 4 and the A37 of the Group 12. The only doubt now is wich plane will be selected to replace the F5 TIII + of the Group 7, but that decition will be made in 2010 - 2012.

i thought the a37 were staying in service as they were well liked and were excellent CAS aircraft also more f16 would be good for chile especialie as some euro users are relplaceing their F16 and they should be going cheap

 

[tankee1981]

Sorry, I have a question but its not directly related to Chile's military.

Recently, Singapore also announced that we are buying 66 Leo2A4 plus 30 spare tanks from Germany. So i am wondering if they are from the same stock(ex German war stock) as those sold to Chile and if there are any differences. Thanks

 

[swerve]

Sorry, I have a question but its not directly related to Chile's military.

Recently, Singapore also announced that we are buying 66 Leo2A4 plus 30 spare tanks from Germany. So i am wondering if they are from the same stock(ex German war stock) as those sold to Chile and if there are any differences. Thanks

Yes. Read the "German tank sales" thread for a breakdown.

 

[Feña]

i thought the a37 were staying in service as they were well liked and were excellent CAS aircraft also more f16 would be good for chile especialie as some euro users are relplaceing their F16 and they should be going cheap

Yes It is a cheap plane to fly but you cant do it forever right? ... so in a few years it must be replaced by a new plane and since the FACH (Chilean Air Force) are trying to reduce the operating cost of the force, the plane of choice will be more F16 ... and now they are not that expensive so it all fits together

how many TAMs can get over the Andes to get at central Chile? I've been there, crossed those mountains, & I don't think MBTs would play much part in fighting across them. If the Argentinean army has tanks threatening Santiago, you've already lost, & all those tanks won't save you.

Thats why you wont see large heavy formatins in central Chile, maybe a regiment / battalion in Santiago (after all it is the capital) and the armored cavalry school battalion, but the main forces will be the Special Operation Brigade, the Air Brigade, two mountain brigades plus three or four reinforced regiments (two battalions plus support).

Now, for an army corps in Patagonia. Doing what? Let's say the Argentineans attack towards Aysen, or any point between there & the far south. What's your corps down there going to do? You need light forces, preferably airmobile. Your one & only road is far, far too easy to cut, & still doesn't go anywhere near all the way, & the terrain is extremely rugged. Tanks would be more use in the far south which is, effectively, an island (or rather, an archipelago), accessible only by sea & air, but only if you have good strength in the air, & protection for the sea lanes, or forces there will wither on the vine. But in any case, what are they defending? That's territory which can be best defended by defeating Argentina further north, & therefore getting a good peace settlement. Its temporary loss would not threaten Chiles survival.

After reading your post I got to think that you probably know just Aysen, the ground changes at the southern part of Chile and this part connects with the argentinian pampa, wich are a great MBT country, beause it allows the most efficient use of the main armament with long range engagemets, so its reasonable situate a armored formation there.

Besides, you had said it, there are just one road and it can be easily closed by air power so we did need pre position assets to deal with any threat, dont you agree?

In the chilean patagonia you can find several oil and gas shafts and the magallanes strait wich will be the only passage betwen the atlantic and the pacific ocean if the Panama canal is closed ... so it has certain strategic importance, besides, there lives at least 300.000 chileans in the cityes of Punta Arenas, Natales and Puerto Williams, they are our fellow countrymen and we certainly didnt gona leave them unprotected as they were in the 70´s. At this point the army corps in patagonia is capable of maintain his ground against an invader until it was reinforced.

And in a more "emotional" level if you like, if you were an american general and there was a cuban invation (i know its prepousterous but allow me this), you will retreat a perfectly good field army from Florida to Georgia, just because the lost of it doesnt theathen the US survival as a nation?

Across the southern Andes towards Osorno & Puerto Montt is more vulnerable. Still not exactly easy terrain (all those trees! - but I expect the road's been paved now), but easier than further north, & it gives access to the heart of the country. Of course, there, Argentina has worse logistical problems than Chile, unlike further south.

Thats right, the andes are lower at that part of the country, but again you can counter this kind of attacks with a combination of forces, the armour will be just a part of it and, I say it again, I dont want to be the army with the winter andes at my back, logistics is the magic word here ....

Have you seen the roads on their side? Much better on the Chilean side, when I was there.

Not any more, the chilean roads are now far better,

And shorter distances, too. Chilean units would be better able to support each other than Argentinean. Sometimes lack of strategic depth is a positive advantage.

Yep, but only if you have something to throw in the game ....

Now, what did you say about my knowledge of the geography?

I will give you a B-

 

[swerve]

... After reading your post I got to think that you probably know just Aysen, the ground changes at the southern part of Chile and this part connects with the argentinian pampa, wich are a great MBT country, beause it allows the most efficient use of the main armament with long range engagemets, so its reasonable situate a armored formation there.

You're right, I haven't seen the very far south, except in photographs. But I was aware it was better tank country than further north.

...
Besides, you had said it, there are just one road and it can be easily closed by air power so we did need pre position assets to deal with any threat, dont you agree?.

But not much point in pre-positioning forces which the other side can afford to ignore. They become a waste of resources.

... In the chilean patagonia you can find several oil and gas shafts and the magallanes strait wich will be the only passage betwen the atlantic and the pacific ocean if the Panama canal is closed ... so it has certain strategic importance, besides, there lives at least 300.000 chileans in the cityes of Punta Arenas, Natales and Puerto Williams, they are our fellow countrymen and we certainly didnt gona leave them unprotected as they were in the 70´s. At this point the army corps in patagonia is capable of maintain his ground against an invader until it was reinforced.

And in a more "emotional" level if you like, if you were an american general and there was a cuban invation (i know its prepousterous but allow me this), you will retreat a perfectly good field army from Florida to Georgia, just because the lost of it doesnt theathen the US survival as a nation?

Understandable, but in the unlikely event (& seriously, do you really expect it?) of a war, devoting a large part of your army to defending 2% of your population doesn't seem sensible. The seaway is of strategic value more to other countries than Chile.

...
Thats right, the andes are lower at that part of the country, but again you can counter this kind of attacks with a combination of forces, the armour will be just a part of it and, I say it again, I dont want to be the army with the winter andes at my back, logistics is the magic word here ....

Agreed! Emphatically!

...
Not any more, the chilean roads are now far better,

You've misunderstood me. That's what I said.

...
I will give you a B-

Better than the E- you gave me before, eh?

 

[Feña]

But not much point in pre-positioning forces which the other side can afford to ignore. They become a waste of resources.

Why is that?, if you have travel in the south part of Argentina you must know that in their part of the patagonia are the main argentinian fields of oil and gas and they need those fields to supply their domestic needs of energy, and even part of that production is sold to Chile so, as far as I know, oil is something any country try to keep, in the very unlikely event of a war, they cant afford to "ignore" a heavy unit equiped with Leopards 2, YPR 765, Hummvees with spike ATGMs, and supported by a couple of F16 squadrons, because they will roll over one of the most valuable real state of their country ...

As I said the possibility of a war between Chile and Argentina is very unlikely, but as the romans says "si vis pacem, para bellum" and the sad thruth is that Argentina has a black record of treatening to use force to deal with us, the most recent event was in 1978 when they were at hours of launching a full scale assault on us, even some argentine regiments advance several kilometers inside Chile before they get the call back by the high command, and the only reason that they didnt launch that operation was because the amphibious force that has the mission of take by assault three strategic chilean islands were badly shaken by a south atlantic storm ... so we take the "eternal friendship" statements of the argentinians with one or two grains of salt ... and the other part of this is the peruvians, in that ocasion they rise the activity of the armoured corps in Tacna (300 T55 MBT located at 40 km of the northern chilean border) and their navy begin "combat exercises" that will take their fleet to the south ... so that wasnt funny nor happy days in the foxholes and we will be damn if we get in that possition again ... remember that the lieutenants and capitains that were in the ground facing the war with old equipment and few ammunitions were now generals ....

Bye

 

[swerve]

Why is that?, if you have travel in the south part of Argentina you must know that in their part of the patagonia are the main argentinian fields of oil and gas and they need those fields to supply their domestic needs of energy, and even part of that production is sold to Chile so, as far as I know, oil is something any country try to keep, in the very unlikely event of a war, they cant afford to "ignore" a heavy unit equiped with Leopards 2, YPR 765, Hummvees with spike ATGMs, and supported by a couple of F16 squadrons, because they will roll over one of the most valuable real state of their country ...

Probably not, because of what you said: logistics. Any Chilean forces poised to attack Argentinean oilfields (e.g. all those nodding donkeys inland of Comodoro Rivadavia) will be at the end of a very precarious supply line, easily cut. Ask Napoleon or Rommel about the wisdom of attacking in those circumstances.

BTW, the important part of the force you describe is the last part: "a couple of F-16 squadrons". Ground forces advancing into Argentinean Patagonia without command of the air are doomed. With command of the air, they don't need lots of heavy armour: indeed, it would be a drag, adding greatly to their logistical needs & slowing them down.

As I said the possibility of a war between Chile and Argentina is very unlikely, but as the romans says "si vis pacem, para bellum" and the sad thruth is that Argentina has a black record of treatening to use force to deal with us, the most recent event was in 1978 when they were at hours of launching a full scale assault on us, even some argentine regiments advance several kilometers inside Chile before they get the call back by the high command, and the only reason that they didnt launch that operation was because the amphibious force that has the mission of take by assault three strategic chilean islands were badly shaken by a south atlantic storm ... so we take the "eternal friendship" statements of the argentinians with one or two grains of salt ... and the other part of this is the peruvians, in that ocasion they rise the activity of the armoured corps in Tacna (300 T55 MBT located at 40 km of the northern chilean border) and their navy begin "combat exercises" that will take their fleet to the south ... so that wasnt funny nor happy days in the foxholes and we will be damn if we get in that possition again ... remember that the lieutenants and capitains that were in the ground facing the war with old equipment and few ammunitions were now generals ....

Bye

Argentina is no longer ruled by a stupidly adventurous military dictatorship. Argentinean governments have kept the armed forces short of money (because the govt was more frightened of the army than invasion!) for over 20 years. Times have changed. And last estimate I saw was that most of those Peruvian T-55s aren't serviceable.